Corso di Dottorato di ricerca
in Lingue, Culture e Società
Moderne e Scienze del Linguaggio
ciclo 31 LLIN/02Tesi di Ricerca
CLIL beyond the
classroom
A pedagogical framework to bridge the gap
between school and museum content and
language integrated learning
Coordinatore del Dottorato Prof Enric Bou Maqueda Supervisore Prof.ssa Carmel Mary Coonan Dottorando Fabiana Fazzi Matricola 843931CLIL beyond the classroom:
A pedagogical framework to bridge the gap between school and
museum content and language integrated learning
Acknowledgements I
Foreword III
Abstract IV
1.! Introduction
1
1.1.!The current research 2
1.2.!Overview of the thesis 4
Part 1: The theoretical framework
2.! Language learning beyond the classroom
6
2.1.! What is learning beyond the classroom? 7
2.2.! The formal/non-formal/informal debate in applied linguistics 13 2.3.! Research on language learning beyond the classroom 15 2.3.1.! Research on informal language learning 16 2.3.2.! Research on non-formal language learning 22
2.3.3.! Towards CLIL beyond the classroom 26
2.4.! Bridging the gap between in and out-of-school language learning:
teachersÕ beliefs, practice, and training 29
2.5.! Our contribution to the debate 33
3.! Learning and teaching in the museum
35
3.1.!What is a museum? 35
3.2.!The museum and its staff 37
3.3.!Museum education: definitions and trajectories 38
3.3.1.! Museum education in Italy 40
3.3.2.! School-museum partnership: the Italian political landscape 41
3.4.!The museum educator: role and profile 42
3.5.!The educational value of field trips to museums 46
3.5.1.! The ÔpowerÕ of museum objects 47
3.7.1.1.! Questions 55 3.7.1.2.! Visual Thinking Strategies (VTS) technique 56 3.7.1.3.! Discovery learning and Inquiry Based Science Education (IBSE) 57
3.8.!School-museum collaboration 58
3.8.1.! Supporting the integration of the museum visit into the school curriculum 59
4.! Learning and teaching in CLIL
64
4.1.!What is CLIL? 64
4.2.!CLIL in Italy 65
4.3.!The Italian CLIL teacher profile 67
4.4.!Learning in CLIL: benefits and challenges 68
4.5.!Teaching in CLIL 71
4.5.1.! Module/Unit planning 73
4.5.2.! TeachersÕ role in CLIL 77
4.5.2.1.! Receptive skills in CLIL 77
4.5.2.2.! Materials and activities to support and promote receptive skills in CLIL 80
4.5.2.3.! Productive skills in CLIL 81
4.5.2.4.! Question types: purpose, form and cognitive complexity 83
4.5.3.! StudentsÕ role in CLIL 85
4.5.4.! Assessment in CLIL 88
5.! Language learning and teaching in the museum
90
5.1.!Research on L2 learning in the museum 90
5.2.!Research on FL learning in the museum 91
5.3.!CLIL learning in the museum: an Italian phenomenon? 92
5.3.1.! Some examples of CLIL museum programmes 93
5.3.2.! Issues in designing and delivering CLIL in the museum 95
PART 2: The current research
6.! The CLIL museum programmes
(Foundation Civic Museums of Venice) 97
6.1.! Development of the CLIL museum programmes 97
6.1.1.! The CLIL museum art programmes at CaÕ Pesaro and CaÕ Rezzonico 97
6.1.2.! The CLIL museum science programme at the Natural History Museum
of Venice 100
6.2.! The structure of the CLIL museum programmes 103
6.2.1.! Looking for the right words 103
6.2.2.! Animal Classification 114
7.! The school-museum integrated CLIL module
(Liceo artistico Marco Polo in Venice)
119
7.1.! Development of the module 119
7.2.! The structure of the module 121
7.3.! Implementation of the module 126
8.! The study
127
8.1.!The research context 128
8.2.!The research methodology 130
8.3.!The research process 132
8.4.! Research questions 133
8.5.! Participants 135
8.6.! Data collection: instruments 139
8.7.! Data collection: procedures 145
8.8.!Data analysis procedures 150
8.8.1.! Quantitative data analysis procedures 150
8.8.2.! Qualitative data analysis procedures 150
8.8.2.1.!
Step 1: Organisation and preparation of data for analysis 1548.8.2.2.! Step 2: Coding the data 156
8.8.2.3.! Step 3: Interrelating Themes and Descriptions 159 8.8.2.4.! Step 4: Interpreting the meaning of Themes/Description 160
8.9.! Research validity and reliability 160
8.10.! Ethics 162
9.! Data analysis
164
9.1.! Data analysis in relation to Research question 1: integration of CLIL and
museum-based pedagogies 165
9.1.1.! Vision 165
9.1.2.! Context 169
9.1.3.! The CLIL museum programme methodology 183
9.1.4.! The CLIL museum educator profile 200
9.2.! Data analysis in relation to Research question 2: integration of the CLIL
museum visit in the school curriculum 209
9.2.1.! TeachersÕ (Group 2) perspective 210
9.2.2.! The Marco Polo teachers/students, and Researcher-practitionerÕs
perspective 214
9.2.2.1.! TeachersÕ CLIL training and professional development 215 9.2.2.2.! Team Teaching across subjects and contexts 218 9.2.2.3.! Logistics and Organisation of the module 220
9.2.2.6.! Poster and Assessment 232 9.3.!Data analysis in relation to Research question 3: impact on studentsÕ attitudes 242 9.3.1.! StudentsÕ (Group 1 and 2) quantitative responses in the questionnaires 243
9.3.2.! Qualitative data analysis 252
9.3.2.1.! Factor 1: Attitudes towards the overall CLIL museum experience 252 9.3.2.2.! Factor 2: Attitudes towards the use of English as a FL in an
out-of-school context 266
9.4.!Data analysis in relation to Research question 4: impact on studentsÕ perceived
learning outcomes 278
9.4.1.! Quantitative data analysis: students and teachersÕ questionnaires 278
9.4.2.! Qualitative data analysis 285
9.4.2.1.! Skills and Vocabulary 286
9.4.2.2.! Knowledge and understanding across contexts and subjects 290
9.4.2.3.! Support 295
10.!Discussion
301
10.1.! Integrating CLIL and museum-based pedagogies 301
10.1.1.!Creating a shared vision for CLIL in the museum 302
10.1.2.!Establishing a fruitful partnership 303
10.1.3.!School-museum collaboration: take 1 305
10.1.4.!During-visit: context 306
10.1.5.!During-visit: methodology 309
10.2.! Integrating the CLIL museum visit into the upper secondary school
curriculum 311 10.2.1.!TeachersÕ goals, expectations, and perceptions 311
10.2.2.!School-museum collaboration: take 2 313
10.2.3.!CLIL Team Teaching in and beyond the classroom 314 10.2.4.!The Òwashback effectÓ and the value of the integrated module 315 10.2.5.!Integrating the three stages: pre-, during-, and post-visit 315
10.2.6.!Poster and Assessment 318
10.2.7.!Designing school-museum integrated CLIL modules:
should we involve students? 319
10.3.! StudentsÕ attitudes towards CLIL learning in the museum 320
10.3.1.!Museum context 321
10.3.2.!CLIL beyond the classroom 322 10.3.3.!Learning environment 323
10.3.4.!LearnersÕ interests, self-concept, and career plans 324
10.4.! Learning gains of CLIL learning in the museum 325
10.4.1.!Skills and vocabulary 325
10.4.2.!Knowledge and understanding across contexts and subjects 326
10.5.! Bridging the gap between CLIL at school and at the museum 328
10.5.1.!The pedagogical framework 328
11.! Conclusion
333
11.1.! Overview of the research 333
11.2.! Summary of the findings 334
11.3.! Limitations 338
11.4.! Suggestions for future research 339
Bibliography
341
APPENDIXES
Appendix A.
Activity books and worksheets of the CLIL museum programmes at the Civic museums of Venice, TeachersÕ supporting documentAppendix B.
Worksheets used during the school-museum integrated CLIL module on Animal classification used by the Marco Polo teachersAppendix C.
StudentsÕ questionnairesAppendix D.
TeachersÕ (Group 2) questionnairesAppendix E1/E2.
Questioning route for Marco Polo Art studentsÕ focus groups and conversation aids sheetAppendix F.
Questioning route for Marco Polo teachers and Researcher-practitionerÕs fruitful discussionAppendix G.
Questioning route for MSN staff and Researcher-practitionerÕs fruitful discussionAppendix H.
Questioning route for the Education DirectorÕs written interviewAppendix I.
Questioning route for the Museum Educator 1Õs written interviewAppendix L.
Questioning route for the Museum Educator 2Õs oral interviewAppendix M.
Transcriptions. Education Director and Museum Educator 1Õs written interviews, Museum Educator 2Õs interview, MSN staff and the Researcher-practitionerÕs fruitful discussion, Marco Polo teachers andstudentsÕ focus groups, and the Researcher-practitionerÕs journal entries
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Prof. Coonan for having always believed in my research topic, and for having encouraged me to own my successes as much as my failures. The little I know about being a researcher, I owe it to her.
My sincere gratitude goes to Prof. David Lasagabaster and Prof. Jocelyn Dodd, who have kindly accepted to supervise my work during my research stays at the University of the Basque Country (Spain) and University of Leicester (United Kingdom) respectively. Their feedbacks and suggestions were pivotal in developing the current work, through critically discussing its positive and critical aspects and its future developments.
I would also like to thank my PhD fellows, and the friends I have made in the last three years. To Silvia DÕOrtenzio, Vincenzo Nicol˜ Di Caro, Valeria Tonioli, Camilla Spaliviero, Beatrice Giuliano, and Laura Volpato, you have been my second family. To Valeria Tonioli and Ada Bier, thank you for being my critical friends, and for always being open to give me the advice that I needed. To Stefania Zardini Lacedelli, meeting you was like meeting my research soul mate, if something like that exists. To Maysa Abuzant Qanabita, Asier Calzada Lizarraga, Marta, Olina Sim, Aisha Almisnad, and Olatunde Barber, thank you for sharing with me the passion and love for knowledge.
To the Foundation Civic Museums of Venice, and in particular to Monica Da Cortˆ Fumei, Luca Mizzan, Margherita Fusco, Barbara Favaretto, Claudia Calabresi, Chiara Miotto, Cristina Gazzola, and Gabriele Paglia for their wonderful collaboration, and support throughout these three years and for giving me the opportunity to conduct my research in the most beautiful museums in the world.
To the Istituto istruzione Superiore Marco Polo Liceo Artistico and to their wonderful teachers and students, and to the other teachers and students that took part in the study. You have been my source of inspiration.
I also want to thank my family for supporting me every step of the way. They are my oasis of tranquility, and my model of conduct in every sphere of my life.
I also want to thank my boyfriend for his patience and understanding, for listening to my rambling, even when all he wanted to do was to relax after a long day at work. For being both
it was impossible. If I were a painting, he would be my frame.
Last, but not at all least, I would like to thank my dad, Claudio. I would have never started this amazing journey were it not for him. Everything I am and everything I have ever accomplished, I owe it to him. He always made me believe I could become anything I wanted, encouraging my curiosity, and critical thinking, and giving me the chance to travel, and know both my limits and my strengths. Unfortunately, he is not here to see what we started together, but every page and every word is imbued with his wisdom, his wit, and my eternal love for him. I dedicate this work to him.
Foreword
When I started thinking about doing a PhD in Language Education, I was not sure I wanted to concentrate on language learning in the museum context. Of course, I had a thriving passion for museums and even a stronger one for language learning and teaching, and the integration of the two seemed like an interesting area to investigate. However, I also had a powerful urge for my research to be useful, to make a difference on individual lives.
In the first few months of my PhD journey, I kept asking myself this very same question: am I really fulfilling my aim of being of use to others through my research? I had to be realistic: I was not going to cure cancer, or find a solution to global warming. Mine would be a drop in the ocean of foreign language education research, and it would explore a possible solution to bridging the gap between formal (school) and non-formal (museum) foreign language learning and teaching, with specific attention to the Italian context. Was this going to qualify as socially useful research, where by ÒsocialÓ I meant that it would include multiple actors of the current society, and by ÒusefulÓ, that it would have a positive impact on their personal and professional lives?
I will not provide you with an answer now, but leave you to the research participantsÕ words and numbers, to the narrative of how this particular project developed and of what model and artefacts it produced, and to my own, and to those of my fellow researchersÕ reflections, beliefs and attitudes. Indeed, while the main audience of this written work is the academic community, I also and particularly want to reach the educational community at large: one that ought to be inspired to produce innovation well beyond the current project so as to create a sustainable teaching and learning ecosystem committed to improving young peopleÕs holistic foreign language learning.
Abstract
In the last two decades, several studies have reported on the benefits of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on studentsÕ affective and cognitive gains, and just as many pedagogical frameworks exist to inform teachersÕ design and implementation of CLIL modules/units. However, CLIL is still confined within the classroom walls, and no study has yet investigated CLIL beyond the classroom.
This PhD thesis addresses the above-mentioned gap by reporting on a three year action research project in collaboration with the Foundation Civic Museums of Venice and the Liceo
artistico Marco Polo and aimed at: (i) developing a pedagogical framework to bridge the gap
between CLIL learning at the museum and at school, (ii) understanding the impact of participating in a CLIL museum visit on upper secondary school studentsÕ attitudes and perceived learning outcomes. The project involved several actors - the museum staff, 322 upper secondary school students, 11 upper secondary school teachers and the Researcher-practitioner Ð working in three different institutions: the museum, the school, and the university.
A mixed method research design was implemented and results reveal that, despite the difficulty in integrating CLIL and museum-based pedagogies, participating in the CLIL museum visit can have a very positive impact on studentsÕ attitudes towards the use of the foreign language in an authentic context and on their perceived learning outcomes. Also, we found that there is a connection between studentsÕ attitudes towards CLIL beyond the classroom and their professional interests and type of school attended. Finally, a pedagogical framework was designed to support both museum educators and teachersÕ design and implementation of CLIL activities that bridge the gap between the classroom and the world beyond.
If we teach todayÕs students as we taught yesterdayÕs,
we rob them of tomorrow
1
1.! Introduction
ÒFrom the standpoint of the child, the great waste in the school comes from its inability to utilize the experiences he gets outside the school in any complete and free way within the school itself; while, on the other hand, he is unable to apply in daily life what he is learning at school.Ó
(Dewey 1907, 89)
The idea for this research came from the realisation that the boundaries between what and how we learn languages are now more blurred than ever before. The advent of technology, the mobility of people, ideas, and goods within and across countries, the needs and dynamics of what Bauman calls the Òliquid societyÓ have resulted in dramatic changes in educational policies at national and international level. According to the OECD Òthe growth of human capital to ensure economic success requires the development of Ôthe knowledge, skills competences and attributes that allow people to contribute to their personal and social well-being and that of other countriesÓ (2007 quoted in Coyle, Hood, and Marsh 2010, 154). In the light of our multilingual society, knowing more than one language has thus become a fundamental component of human capital, and the European Union has placed great efforts in promoting the most innovative approaches to language teaching and learning.
In the last twenty years, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) has certainly gained momentum across and outside Europe as one of such approaches. The recent report on the state of the educational policies regarding the teaching and learning of languages in 42 European countries (European Commission 2017) shows how, as of today, all the states have, to different degrees and in different ways, implemented CLIL in their educational system. The reasons behind this trend are to be found in the belief that CLIL promotes a more authentic and motivating use of the foreign language (henceforth FL). Not only have several studies shown that CLIL students are more motivated to learn the FL (Lasagabaster 2011; Lasagabaster and Sierra 2009; Seikkula-Leino 2007), but they have also been found to be more linguistically competent than their non-CLIL counterparts (Lasagabaster 2008; Coyle 2013), while no negative repercussion on their L1 development and content learning has been detected (Dalton-Puffer 2011). However, CLIL programmes are still confined within the walls of the school classroom, and thus seem to be one step behind more Òreal lifeÓ experiences, such as study abroad and service learning programmes (those that combine learning objectives with community service; see Canuto 2016). As
Menegale (2013, 1) points out, Òone of the goals of language learning is that students can both apply outside the classroom what they learn at school and, vice versa, can use in classroom what derives from their experience in real lifeÓ. SylvŽn and Sundqvist (2015, 59) underscore that CLIL can very well take place outside of the school context, especially because Òit seems particularly effective when learners use English while at the same time there is content of some type needed to be learnedÓ. Curiously enough, museums in Italy have recently moved in this direction by offering museum learning programmes that integrate content and FL learning (see Fazzi 2018). However, according to SylvŽn and Sundqvist (2015), studentsÕ engagement in out-of-school FL activities is still rather unexplored in the literature, and, to our knowledge, no study has yet investigated out-of-school CLIL. This deficit calls for empirical research that, on the one side, investigates the affordances of museums for FL learners, and on the other, offers methodological guidelines to both museum educators and teachers to collectively bridge the gap between CLIL education in and beyond the classroom.
In Paragraph 1.1., we will briefly outline our research, while in Paragraph 1.2., we will describe how this thesis is structured.
1.1.! The current research
In trying to address the above-mentioned gap, our thesis aims at: 1) defining a pedagogical framework that could help bridge the gap between CLIL at school and at the museum, and 2) exploring the impact that participating in a CLIL museum visit has on studentsÕ attitudes and perceived learning outcomes. As for the first aim, we devised the following research questions:
1) What aspects need to be taken into consideration when integrating CLIL and museum-based pedagogies?
2) What aspects need to be taken into consideration when integrating a CLIL museum visit into the upper secondary school curriculum?
As for the second aim, we devised the following research questions:
3) What impact does participation in the CLIL museum visit have on studentsÕ attitudes? 4) What impact does participation in the CLIL museum visit have on studentsÕ perceived
3 Our research process can be visualised in Figure 1:
Figure 1: Visual representation of research process
We decided that the best way to answer the abovementioned research questions was to design an action research project in collaboration with the Foundation Civic Museums of Venice, and the
Liceo artistico Marco Polo. According to Ebbutt (1985 quoted in Coonan 2000, 9), Òaction
research is the systematic study of attempts to change and improve educational practice by groups of participants by means of their own practical actions and by means of their own reflections upon the effects of those actionsÓ. Within this methodological framework, our action plan consisted of the following stages (see Table 1):
Table 1: Plan of the current action research project (adapted from Kemmis and McTaggart 1988)
1)! Plan and Act stages
Development and implementation of three CLIL museum programmes and of a school-museum integrated CLIL module (see Chapters 6 and 7), with the aim of: (i) responding to the principles of museum-based learning and pedagogies, (ii) scaffolding and encouraging studentsÕ active and collaborative engagement with museum contents through English as a FL, and (iii) promoting the integration of CLIL museum visit in the upper secondary school curriculum (see Chapters 6 and 7).
2)! Observation stage
Design of four main research questions, which aimed at exploring participantsÕ reflections, comparisons, and evaluations as regards the integration of CLIL and museum-based pedagogies across the school and museum contexts, and investigating studentsÕ attitudes and perceived learning outcomes through using eight research instruments (see Chapters 8).
3)! Reflection stage
Design of a pedagogical framework, which, on the basis of the analysis and discussion of the findings to the four research questions, would respond to the pedagogical aims set in the ÒPlanÓ stage (see Chapters 9 and 10).
1.2.! Overview of the thesis
The current research consists of two parts. In Part 1, we will present the literature that has informed our study, and which is related to three main fields of research: language learning beyond the classroom (Chapter 2), museum-based pedagogy (Chapter 3), and CLIL teaching and learning (Chapter 4). Thus, we will outline the brief literature review on language learning in the museum setting (Chapter 5). In Part 2, we will focus on our study. We will outline in detail the CLIL museum programmes developed at the Foundation Civic Museums of Venice (Chapter 6), and the school-museum integrated CLIL module at the Liceo artistico Marco Polo (Chapter 7). Then, we will outline the research methodology underpinning our study (Chapter 8), and present the analysis of the findings of our research project (Chapter 9), before discussing them (Chapter 10). Finally, we will present out conclusions, by highlighting both limitations and future
5
PART 1
2. Language learning beyond the classroom
Acquisition results from a combination of language instruction, exposure to language input (Krashen 1985 quoted in Benson 2011, 7), and opportunities to produce language input (Swain 1985 quoted in ibid.), and both academics and teachers agree that students Òlearn best when they combine classroom learning with out-of-class learningÓ (Benson 2011, 7).
According to Byalistok (1981), extramural exposure to a FL, that is the encounter that students have with the FL outside of the school context, can be defined as functional practice, as Òthe most functional situationÓ for language learning Òwould likely occur outside the classroom in a natural setting, where conveying the message is the only essential goal of the language occasionÓ. The implication is that language learning is not limited to the classroom but can potentially take place in any context, be it the family, an online/face-to-face tandem project, an after school programme, or the Internet (Hyland 2004; Reinders and Benson 2011; Nunan and Richards 2015; SylvŽn and Sundqvist 2017). In this context, the true challenge for the contemporary researcher is not in demonstrating that language learning is ubiquitous in nature, but to describe what learning opportunities or affordances for language learning are specific to each context, how they are/can be exploited by learners, and how teachers should be involved (Reinders and Benson 2017, 561). If we really want students to fulfil their learning potential, we need both in- and out-of-class learning activities.
The main task of this chapter is to give an overview of the learning settings beyond the classroom that have received most attention in the literature, bringing to the fore the impact they have on learnersÕ language development and affective factors. In paragraph 2.1., we will outline the different interpretations and definitions related to language learning beyond the classroom. Thus, we will report on BensonÕs (2011) framework as a possible tool to investigate, describe, and analyse language learning beyond the classroom (see paragraph 2.2.). In paragraph 2.3., we will summarise some of the literature on informal (see paragraph 2.3.1.) and non-informal (see paragraph 2.3.2.) language learning, before devoting attention to the emerging research on CLIL beyond the classroom (see paragraph 2.3.3.). In paragraph 2.4., we will move onto presenting some of the existing pedagogical frameworks on how the gap between in and out-of-school language learning can be bridged. Finally, we will explain the rationale for the current research.
7
2.1. What is learning beyond the classroom?
In the last two decades, learning beyond the classroom has established itself as an innovative field of research both in the educational sciences and applied linguistics. Unfortunately, confusion has crept in with alternative terms being used to define overlapping concepts. The result is a terminological jungle, in which different types of learning are conceptualised in different ways, as a result of different underpinning theories of learning.
In an attempt to shed light on the debate, the official journal of the European Union (European Commission 2012) gives the following definitions:
Formal learning means learning which takes place in an organised and structured environment,
specifically dedicated to learning, and typically leads to the award of a qualification, usually in the form of a certificate or a diploma; it includes systems of general education, initial vocational training and higher education.
Non- formal learning means learning which takes place through planned activities (in terms of
learning objectives, learning time) where some form of learning support is present (e.g. student-teacher relationships); it may cover programmes to impart work skills, adult literacy and basic education for early school leavers; very common cases of non-formal learning include in-company training, through which companies update and improve the skills of their workers such as ICT [i.e. Information and Communication Technologies] skills, structured on-line learning (e.g. by making use of open educational resources1), and courses organised by civil society organisations for their members, their target group or the general public.
Informal learning means learning resulting from daily activities related to work, family or leisure
and is not organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support; it may be unintentional from the learnerÕs perspective; examples of learning outcomes acquired through informal learning are skills acquired through life and work experiences, project management skills or ICT skills acquired at work, languages learned and intercultural skills acquired during a stay in another country, ICT skills acquired outside work, skills acquired through volunteering, cultural activities, sports, youth work and through activities at home (e.g. taking care of a child).
Keeping the distinction above, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) also refers to intentionality as the dimension that distinguishes between formal and non-formal learning, on the one side, and informal, on the other (Cedefop 2007, 15). Indeed, while
formal and non-formal learning are intentional from the learnerÕs point of view, informal learning is characterised by lack of intentionality as, in most cases, informal learning is non-intentional (or incidental/random; ibid.).
It needs to be highlighted that two main approaches have been adopted by researchers when trying to define the different kinds of learning: one that sees informal and formal learning as opposite poles (see Colley, Hodkinson, and Malcolm 2002; Hofstein and Rosenfeld 1996), and the other that interprets this distinction as more hybrid (see Eshach 2007).
In particular, on the basis of an extensive literature review, Colley, Hodkinson, and Malcolm (2002 quoted in Golding, Brown, and Foley 2009, 38) suggest that formal and informal learning Òcan be characterised and differentiated from each otherÓ inasmuch they represent polar opposites (see Figure 2). Of the same opinion is UNEVOC (2008 quoted in ibid.), which classification also includes non-formal learning (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Types of formal and informal learning: Table 1 (Colley, Hodkinson, and Malcolm 2002
as reported in Golding, Brown, and Foley 2009, 38) and Table 2 (UNEVOC 2008 as reported in Golding, Brown, and Foley 2009, 38)
9 After reviewing the definitions presented in the two figures above, Golding, Brown, and Foley (2009) propose a theory of learning, which is more organic in nature, and compare learning to producing food. Though politically marked1, the analogy is useful inasmuch as formal learning,
compared to Òlarge-scale foodÓ production, and informal learning, compared to Òbackyard and community gardeningÓ, are viewed as superficially similar products, but in fact differ in terms of (idem, 47): Òprocesses, context, content, and purposes associated with productionÓ. They conclude that all learning situations are more or less characterised by both formal and informal aspects, and that the aim should be to integrate or hybridize them (idem, 47), and to see them as interrelated. For example, McGivney (1999 quoted in Van Marsenille 2015, 25) claims that there is much more continuity between formal and informal learning than we might think. Indeed, informal learning may well take place in the classroom when Òlearners work in groups and share views and experiencesÓ (ibid.). On the other hand, Òformal learning occurs in an informal learning situation when the learning is more structured, when the learner is active, structures their own learning and understands how the language is used, its rules and applicationsÓ (ibid.).
Other researchers have drawn similar conclusions from learning traditions, which are rooted in ethnographic studies aimed at exploring how communities around the world conceptualise learning. In particular, Rogoff et al. (2016) report some of these traditions, highlighting that:
(É) how learning is organised and supported is more important than where learning occurs. After all, schools themselves can be organized in informal ways (É), and many settings outside of schools employ the factory model of instruction that is often found in schools, such as when parents didactically control childrenÕs learning (idem, 370).
With the negative label of Òfactory modelÓ, Rogoff et al. (idem, 370) refer to Òa more didactic way of organizing instruction that is common in schoolsÓ also called ÒAssembly-Line Instruction (ALI)Ó, which they put in sharp contrast with ÒLearning by Observing and Pitching In (LOPI)Ó, typical of heritage communities living in the Americas. Within these two paradigms, Scribner and Cole (1973 quoted in ibid.) demarcate that Òschool learning relies almost exclusively on language, especially language used out of the context of practical activities and concrete referents, whereas informal learning heavily employs demonstration without stating rules or principlesÓ. According to the authors (ibid.), informal activities in the communities are not only meant to
1 Golding, Brown, and Foley (2009) focus on the power relations that characterise both informal and formal learning.
Their underpinning agenda is to address the need of Australian educational policies to acknowledge the value of informal learning within the context of Adult and Community Education (ACE).
cognitively educate the child, but also to engage him/her emotionally. What appears to be decisive in differentiating Assembly-Line Instruction (formal) from Learning by Observing and Pitching (informal) traditions is ÔexperienceÕ. According to Greenfield and Lave (1982 quoted in ibid.), informal education is Òembedded in observation and imitation of everyday life activities, with relatives demonstrating activities without (or with rare) explicit curriculum or pedagogyÓ. On the other hand, formal education takes place Òin institutional settings that are removed from everyday life, with specialized personnel presenting principles using a highly systematized and verbal curriculum and pedagogy that focuses on training as an end in itselfÓ. Despite the differences between the two traditions, Rogoff et al. (2016) recognize that they are not mutually exclusive and they call on schools and policy makers to combine them with the aim of creating more holistic educational environments.
Many researchers have agreed that contrasting informal with formal learning in a strict manner is simplistic, and fails to recognise the complexity of both (Hofstein and Rosenfeld 1996; Rogoff et al. 2016). Moving away from the ÔlocationÕ only factor, Ellenbogen (2002 2011 quoted in Bellini 2018, 10) claims that it is social participation that plays a key role in distinguishing between the two kinds of learning. Umphress et al. (2006 quoted in Bellini 2018, 10) suggest that formal and informal learning are different inasmuch as students worry about Òwhether there are consequences for their failure or success to learnÓ. Within this perspective, Bellini (2018) report on Callanan, Cervantes, and LoomisÕ (2011 quoted in ibid.) conceptualisation of informal learning, as comprising the following five dimensions:
1) The extent to which learning is the result of didactic teaching. 2) The extent to which learning is socially collaborative.
3) Its embeddedness in meaningful activities.
4) Whether it is initiated by the learnerÕs interest or choice.
5) The relative presence or absence of external assessment with important consequences.
These dimensions show how the ÔlocationÕ where learning takes place is not sufficient to strictly define it as formal or informal. However, Eshach (2007), one of the main researchers in the field of science learning, goes as far as to say that not even the ÔstructureÕ can alone account for the distinction between formal and informal learning. Indeed, he proposes to distinguish between three kinds of learning Ð formal, non-formal, and informal - on the basis of other factors, such
11
Figure 3: Differences between Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning (Eshach 2007, 174)
Moreover, Eshach (2007) highlights that the distinction between informal and non-formal learning is necessary to account for all the characteristics of out-of-school learning. In particular, he suggests that Òthe frequency to which we attend a place where the learning occursÓ (idem, 174) is fundamental to explain this dichotomy. What the author suggests is that informal learning is more likely to occur in places we visit in our day to day life (i.e. homes, streets, schools), whereas non-formal learning, which is usually prearranged and structured, is more likely to occur in places we seldomly visit (i.e. museums, zoos, planetariums, and aquariums) (see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Informal and non-formal learning model (Eshach 2007, 174)
!
In explaining Figure 4, Eshach (ibid.) claims that museums should be considered as non-formal science learning settings especially when people participate in structured activities within the framework of a school fieldtrip. However, other researchers in the field of museum education
have categorised museums either as sites of informal (see Mathewson-Mitchell 2007; Callanan, Cervantes, and Loomis 2011 quoted in Bellini 2018, 12), or formal learning, adding to the ambiguity so far described.
The aim of this paragraph was that of giving a brief overview of the debate surrounding the conceptualisation of different types of learning, and their related terms and definitions. The hybrid nature of out-of-school learning has led to lack of uniformity in its definition, as scholar have interpreted and categorised it in different ways. In focusing on informal learning, Bellini (2018) affirms that this type of learning is also defined by other labels, such as Ôself-instructedÕ (Van Marsenille 2015 quoted in idem, 13), ÔintentionalÕ (ibid.), ÔincidentalÕ (Doyle 2001 quoted in ibid.), and, interestingly, ÔexperientialÕ (Kolb 1984). In addition, we need to remember that alternative terms and contradictions exist also as regards the distinction between non-formal and informal learning. Rogoff et al. (2016), for example, view extracurricular and after-school programmes as examples of informal learning, while other authors would likely refer to them as non-formal activities.
Within this landscape, the definitions offered by the European Commission (2012) (see beginning of the current paragraph) are pragmatic, as they are meant Òto enable policy makers, researchers and practitioners to speak the same language in their international activitiesÓ (Werquin 2010, 24). However, as Werquin (ibid.) highlights, it is not very helpful to consider the three learning concepts as Òrigidly circumscribedÓ. Indeed, the author (ibid.) claims that: ÒNon-formal learning is situated somewhere between formal and informal learning and there may be advantages in establishing degrees of formality rather than fixed definitionsÓ. He thus proposes the following framework (see Figure 5):
13 Figure 5: The continuum of learning from formal to informal learning (Werquin 2010, 24)
In the above framework, the distinction between the different types of learning is successful in the extent to which users can analytically take into account the national and local variations. In fact, the definitions of the European Commissions (2001, 2012) and Cedefop (2008), while positively clarifying terms so as to simplify communication at international level (see OECD, 2007; Cedefop and European Commission, 2008; Tissot, 2009 quoted in ibid.), also simplify the complexities of the concepts involved.
2.2. The informal/non-formal/formal debate in applied linguistics
The same debate has long interested the field of applied linguistics. Reinders and Benson (2017) highlight that Òthe development of a coherent descriptive model that can help us to separate out the different forms and dimensions of language learning beyond the classroomÓ (idem, 562) is a Òlong-term taskÓ (idem, 563). In fact, whereas classroom research has mainly focused on Òconventional classrooms in educational institutionsÓ, the aim of research on language learning beyond the classroom is much more wide, and more difficult to delimit (Benson 2011, 9). The same terminological confusion, as highlighted in the previous paragraph, can be found in this field, with language learning beyond the classroom being identified by a ÔjungleÕ of names (Benson 2011, 9), including: Ôout-of-classÕ, Ôout-of-schoolÕ, Ôafter-schoolÕ, ÔextracurricularÕ, and ÔextramuralÕ; Ônon-formalÕ and ÔinformalÕ; Ôself-instructedÕ, Ônon-instructedÕ and ÔnaturalisticÕ; ÔindependentÕ, Ôself-directedÕ and ÔautonomousÕ.
Among these, ÔextramuralÕ (from extra, ÒoutsideÓ, + mural, ÒwallsÓ) has certainly gained the widest recognition in the literature. In particular, it was Sundqvist (2011) who first referred to Òextramural EnglishÓ (EE) as an umbrella term able to include the encounters that, more or less voluntarily, students have with English outside of the classroom. As she claims, extramural English does not imply any Òdegree of deliberate intention to acquire English (É) on the part of the learners, even though deliberate intention is by no means excluded from the conceptÓ. Students might engage with English not because they consciously want to but because they feel pressured by their peers of parents (idem, 107).
The problem with the terms cited above is that they are not as inclusive as language learning beyond the classroom (Benson 2011, 9), as they each refer to a number of different dimensions. In particular, Benson (idem) identifies four different dimensions Ð Location, Formality, Pedagogy, and Locus of control Ð which he uses to describe, analyse, and discuss language learning beyond the classroom. He claims that:
Òdefining language learning beyond the classroom as a field of inquiry (É) is to say that it is centrally concerned with location for language learning other than the classroom and with relationships between these locations and aspects of formality, pedagogy and locus of controlÓ (idem, 12).
Within this context, Ôout-of-classÕ, Ôafter-schoolÕ, ÔextracurricularÕ, and ÔextramuralÕ refer mostly to Location, that is the setting where language learning and teaching take place. However, Location is not enough to account for the complexity of that beyond, and this is where the other dimensions come into play. According to Reinders and Benson (2017, 562), Òafter identifying the location (É) we may then determine whether the learning is informal or formal, non-instructed or instructed, self-directed or other-directedÓ, always Òbearing in mind that each distinction has its own complexities and should be treated as a matter of degreeÓ. The second dimension is indeed Formality, which is defined as Òthe degree to which learning is independent of organised courses leading to formal qualificationsÓ (Benson 2011, 10). Moving to the third dimension, Pedagogy, Benson (2011, 11) talks about a continuum from ÔinstructedÕ to ÔnaturalisticÕ. In particular, the author suggest that while ÔinstructedÕ refers to a situation in which there are frontal and deductive explanations, and materials and testing are offered in accordance to a curriculum, ÔnaturalisticÕ is more used when Òthe learner sets a (É) learning situation with the intention of language learning, but once engaged in the situation, switches the focus of attention to communication, enjoyment
15 Benson (2011) is Locus of control, which refers to the person (agent ) that mostly makes the decisions about learning and teaching (idem, 12). Therefore, the last cohort of terms - ÔindependentÕ, Ôself-directedÕ and ÔautonomousÕ Ð refers to a situation in which it is the student that decides about his/her own learning and uses strategies to guide this process independently from the presence of a tutor.
However, in describing and discussing language learning beyond the classroom, Benson (idem, 13) introduces other two concepts, that is Setting and Mode of practice, which are interconnected with the four dimensions mentioned above. He highlights how Setting does not simply imply ÒlocationÓ, but also Òa particular set of circumstances within a location that offer affordances for and constraints on possibilities for language learningÓ (ibid.). In this sense, when describing the setting of a specific learning situation, one has to outline the main physical features of the space, but also the studentsÕ relationship to other people and objects in the setting. Finally, a description of the setting should also consider the pedagogical implications, in relation to the dimensions of formality, pedagogy, and locus of control. The other concept, Mode of practice, is defined as Òa set of routine pedagogical processes that deploy features of a particular setting and may be characteristic of itÓ (idem, 14). According to the author, it is important to highlight the distinction between Setting and Mode of practice, because we tend to connect each setting with one specific mode of practice, without considering that their features and affordances can be used in a dynamic way (ibid.). As the author highlights:
(É) a classroom, for example, may support both teacher-fronted formal instruction, or less formal, student-directed task-based activities, just as a access centre might support individual self-directed use of self-instructional materials or group activities led by a teacher (ibid.).
2.3. Research on language learning beyond the classroom
In the next two paragraphs, we will outline some of the empirical research on the effects of language learning beyond the classroom. We use here BensonÕs (ibid.) label in a pragmatic way, as our aim is that of giving a snapshot of the settings, other than the classroom, where language learning can take place. However, for a more easy-to-follow classification, we will use the European CommissionÕs (2012) distinction between informal learning and non-formal learning. It needs to be stressed that these definitions are only used here out of convenience, and that it is
important to bear in mind the different dimensions that any type of learning entails as highlighted by Benson (2011; see paragraph 2.2.).
2.3.1. Research on informal language learning
The focus of this paragraph is on the impact that engagement in informal learning activities/projects has on studentsÕ language learning and affective factors. Through integrating the European CommissionÕs (2012) definitions with those of EshachÕs (2007), we here identify informal learning activities/projects as having the following characteristics:
1) they take place in daily activities related to work, family or leisure.
2) They are not structured in terms of learning objectives, time, and contents. 3) They are mostly unintentional from the learnerÕs perspective.
4) They are not awarded grades/qualifications.
5) They involve a strong intrinsic motivational component.
Several studies have shown that studentsÕ engagement in informal English language activities (i.e. watching television and films, listening to music, writing fan fiction, and digital gaming) has a positive impact on studentsÕ language development and affective gains.
Through presenting twenty-eight case studies of language learning beyond the classroom, Nunan and Richards (2015) come to the conclusion that the benefits of informal learning can be summarised with three key-words: authenticity, meaningful, and autonomy. Indeed, in informal contexts, learners have the opportunity to both engage with authentic input Ð listening and reading to texts that come up in regular communication -, and produce authentic output Ðproducing personally meaningful utterances instead of the Òprefabricate formulaicÓ ones often produced in the classroom (Nunan 2014, 7). In terms of interaction, Nunan notices that this is mostly unpredictable and uncertain in informal contexts. In particular, Nunan (2014) highlights that while classroom discourse consists of Òsimple rituals and routines as well as display languageÓ, and thus is structured and hierarchical, discourse beyond the classroom consists of Òcomplex rituals and routines resulting from authentic (rather than display) languageÓ, and thus is mostly ÒunstructuredÓ (idem, 2).
17 In the Swedish2 context, Sundqvist (2009) explored both the time spent on extramural encounters
with English and their impact on the oral proficiency and vocabulary skills of 80 students (age 15-16; 36 boys and 44 girls) during one school year (2006-7). In particular, students reported to spend an average of 18.4 hours per week on extramural English activities, with Òlistening to musicÓ being the most popular, followed by Òplaying video gamesÓ, Òwatching TVÓ, Òwatching filmsÓ, Òsurfing the internetÓ, Òother activitiesÓ, Òreading booksÓ, and Òreading newspapers/magazinesÓ (see Sundqvist 2009 reported on in Sundqvist 2011, 110). Sundqvist (2009) found that the total amount of time spent on informal English activities was positively and significantly correlated with both studentsÕ oral proficiency and size of vocabulary. In particular, the activities that require a greater degree of interaction, such as digital gaming, were found to have more of an impact on studentsÕ oral proficiency and vocabulary than receptive activities. Interestingly, while boys in the study seemed to engage more in activities closely connected with oral proficiency and vocabulary, girls opted for more passive/receptive activities, revealing a gender effect which also resulted in boysÕ higher oral and vocabulary test scores than girlsÕ. As regards the affective dimension, SundqvistÕs (2009 reported on in Sundqvist 2011, 113) study revealed a significant positive correlation between studentsÕ engagement in extramural English activities and their self-efficacy and anxiety, with the same differences across the two genders as mentioned above. Interestingly, Sundqvist (2009) also finds that there is a negative correlation between speaking and anxiety with frequent gamers feeling less anxious about speaking the more they played.
Other studies have shown the benefits of L2 gameplay on studentsÕ vocabulary (Sundqvist and Wikstršm 2015; Turgut and Irgin 2012; Jensen 2017), affective gains, and willingness to communicate (Peterson 2012; Reinders and Wattana 2012). For example, Turgut and Irgin (2009) investigated how 10 primary and secondary students in Turkey engage with online games through English and the impact of playing video games on their English vocabulary and pronunciation skills. Their findings suggest that playing video games, such as Knight Online World version, Counter-Strike, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, and FIFA 08, where gamers have to collaborate and interact with the other participants to win the game, have a strong impact on both their incidental vocabulary learning and motivation. Indeed, during the
2 In paragraph 2.2., we mentioned that it was Sundqvist (2009, 2011) that first used the label Extramural English (EE)
and most of the authors from the same geographical region have adopted it when dealing with informal learning. It also needs to be pointed out that most of the literature on informal learning comes from Sweden as a result of recent changes in the national curriculum for English language teaching (see Olsson 2011; Sundqvist 2009, 2011; The State Council 2010; The Swedish National Agency of Education 2004), aimed at better addressing studentsÕ needs and interests.
observation and subsequent interviews, participants claimed that, through playing, they were exposed to the same vocabulary multiple times, increasing the opportunity for its acquisition. Moreover, they also reported to enjoy looking up new words when they felt they were necessary to advance to the next levels in the game (idem, 763). Indeed, Gee (2003, 2008 cited in Kuure 2011, 37) argues that games provide young people with plenty of opportunities to practise Òin a simple form the same complex routines that in a school context they might consider tedious and unmotivatingÓ, and that they Òadvance learning because they require and produce shared cognition, collaboration, cross-functional teams and shared expertiseÓ. In this regard, Turgut and Irgin (2009, 763) also point out that the continuous interaction with both the virtual characters and the other gamers was highly valued by the participants in the study as it offered them immediate feedbacks on their comprehension and oral production, and motivated them to improve their English language skills. However, participants also referred to the importance of using English to make friends with their fellow gamers.
Other research has concentrated on the link between time spent watching TV/films in the FL/L2 and its impact on young peopleÕs language development (Caimi 2006; Rodgers and Webb 2011, 2017; Webb and Rodgers 2009). For instance, Caimi (2006) claims that films, which simultaneously present context, sound, image, and a narrative structure, positively affect FL learnersÕ receptive and productive oral skills, while at the same time increasing their intercultural competence. On the other hand, Rodgers and Webb (2011) carried out a corpus based analysis of the scripts of 288 tv episodes reaching the conclusion that watching tv shows can potentially have a positive impact on incidental vocabulary learning. However, researchers have highlighted how there are differences on how English learners engage with this particular extramural activity depending on the broadcasting habits of their countries. In fact, while in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, the Netherlands, and Portugal, films and tv shows are broadcast in their original language with subtitles, in other countries such as Spain, Germany, France, and, particularly important here, Italy, both audio-visual categories are dubbed in the local language (Zanetti 2016, 21). Studies suggest that this is one of the reasons why teenagers in the first cohort of countries show better listening and vocabulary skills in English than do those in the second cohort (Ruperez-Micola et al. 2009 quoted in ibid.). Despite the advent of the Internet, which has opened the possibility for youngsters Òto watch original material thanks to YouTube and file sharing platformsÓ (Zanetti 2016, 21), the situation has mostly remained the same. In his Master Dissertation, Zanetti (2016) claims that of the 350 Italian upper secondary school students, aged 14-20 years old, participating in his study, the great majority reported not to watch films and tv series in English frequently. He
19 suggests that the reason behind the apparent lack of interest towards this category could be that watching films is cognitively demanding, time consuming and thus requires a great deal of effort and commitment, especially in the case of learners that have a low level of English (Olmedo 2015).
An important point to make here is that young people engage with an extremely rich variety of multimodal texts every day (see Lam 2000; Thorne, Black, and Sykes 2009), thus acting as prosumers -both producers and consumers Ð of the new media landscape (Sundqvist and Olin-Scheller 2013, 332). For example, writing fan texts (Black 2008) and fiction (Sauro 2017) has proven to be a powerful activity in boosting young peopleÕs language and literacy development. Indeed, through collaboratively producing fan texts, learners have the opportunity to exchange ideas, receive feedback on their compositional skills, and co-construct knowledge with their peers in an authentic and stimulating environment (Black 2008 reported in Sundqvist and Olin-Scheller 2013, 333). Another Swedish study (Olsson 2011) explored the impact of extramural English on studentsÕ written production (i.e. letters and news articles), and revealed that the highest scores in the writing tasks and final grades belonged to those students who had reported to engage with extramural English more often.
Despite the abovementioned encouraging results, several studies have demonstrated how students tend to carry out more frequently receptive rather than productive activities in out-of-school contexts (see Hyland 2010). For example, Pickard (1996 cited in Hyland 2010, 182) conducted a study on the types of informal activities that a group of German students carried out to improve their English, and found that Òstudents tended to choose activities involving the receptive skills such as reading and listening, rather than the productive skills, but were also influenced by whether the activity was intrinsically interesting to themÓ. In the Honk Kong context, both Yap (1998 cited in ibid.) and Hyland have demonstrated the difficulty of students to engage in productive (both writing and speaking) activities outside of the school context. While YapÕs (ibid.) study focused on secondary school students, HylandÕs (2010) looked at prospective English teachers, who she thought would be very motivated to exploit any opportunity to improve their skills both in their formal and informal learning context. However, what the author found was that the majority of the university students majoring in the English language, avoided speaking in English outside their work or study environment due to specific socio-political factors (i.e. fear of being judged by their Cantonese friends). What Hyland (ibid.) suggests is that the contextual factors in which language use is taking place need to be addressed if one wants to be able to explain the reasons behind the amount of time students devote to informal FL activities and the
types of activities they prefer. In the case of HylandÕs (2010) research, there was a discrepancy between the use students made of English in their public and private domain, revealing a preference for using Chinese in the public context, where showing solidarity to their own group was necessary. However, personal networks can also work as catalysts for language learning. Palfreyman (2011), for example, demonstrates how in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) family is a social resource for FL learning as it provides Òinformation, support, feedback and models of learning or performanceÓ (idem, 19) . The author refers to the Social Network Theory when saying that people live within networks of relationships, which support the transfer of resources, such as information or gifts, and facilitates peopleÕs activities (ibid.). Through conducting paired interviews with five female Arabic learners (aged 18-25), studying at the English medium Zayed University (ZU), and one member of their social network, Palfreyman revealed that these learners used their siblings, parents, neighbours, and friends both as conversation partners, and to get the resources they needed to improve their English language skills.
Within the same idea of learners as social agents, Kalaja et al. (2011) conducted a longitudinal study in Finland and looked at first year university studentsÕ beliefs about what they had learned of English or Swedish both in and outside of the school context. As the regards the school context, both students of English and Swedish reported to have mostly learned the ÔbasicsÕ, that is grammar and vocabulary (ibid.). On the contrary, out-of-school activities Òwere seen as the means to actually get to use the languages in all modalitiesÓ, as most of the students confirmed to use different types of media as important material and semiotic resources for learning (ibid.). Furthermore, students regarded speaking as simply another skill to practice inside the classroom and as Òactual language useÓ in informal contexts (idem, 56). However, in conceptualising learning, students shared the idea that learning is a Ògradual, accumulative process, which starts from the basics and proceeds in a sequential manner to the study of particular aspects or (sub)skills one at a timeÓ (idem, 58), and did not think of it as something to build through interacting with other people and engaging in tasks. Another element that emerged from studentsÕ interviews was that students of Swedish and English reported to engage differently in out-of-school learning activities as a result of the social discourses surrounding the two languages. While English students sought out learning opportunities in varied ways and out-of-school contexts, Swedish learners failed to do so. Indeed, studentsÕ learning in out-of-school contexts depends on their Òperception of and willingness to exercise their power to act, or agencyÓ3 (idem, 55). Kalaja et al.
21 (2011) well highlight this dimension of language learning beyond the classroom, by defining L2 learners as Òsocial agentsÓ who collaborate with other individuals and exploit the tools and resources available to them to achieve their communicative goals. In this sense, every context Ð be it the family, an online/face-to-face tandem project, an after school programme, surfing the net etc. - potentially offers affordances to advance one ownÕs language knowledge and skills. In the Veneto region (north-east of Italy), Menegale (2013) points out how of the 473 Italian students, aged between 11 to 18, who answered her questionnaire, more than half reported to never or hardly never engage with English outside of the school context. However, when they did engage with English outside of school, students claimed to engage in receptive activities more than in productive ones, even though some of them affirmed to also engage in writing activities. While Menegale (2011, 2013) research mainly focused on the relationship between studentsÕ use of English outside of school and their level of autonomy, she also explored studentsÕ perceptions in relation to FL (i.e. English) use in informal contexts and its implications for teachers. The students in her study perceived the English learnt beyond the classroom as different from that learnt in the school setting, as Òthe language they run into in informal contexts cannot be found in schoolbooksÓ, and it is much Òcloser to their everyday life, interests, and needsÓ (Menegale 2011 reported in Menegale 2013, 12). Furthermore, English beyond the classroom was regarded by these students as less challenging as it did not seem to require high level of accuracy nor it had to undergo teachersÕ evaluation (ibid.).
The same reluctance in engaging with English language learning in the school context has been recorded in other European countries (Henry 2013; Henry and Cliffordson 2017; Ushioda 2013), but for different reasons. In Sweden, English is omnipresent and represents young peopleÕs preferred medium of communication in many out-of-school settings. According to Henry and Cliffordson (2017, 717):
While interactions in English-mediated digital environment (É) can be engaging, creative, and personally meaningful, experiences in school can be altogether different. Even in countries with progressive educational systems (É) English lessons tend to be text-book-centred and offer little scope for personal expression (É)
Henry (2013) refers to this situation as an Òauthenticity gapÓ between the highly valued cognitive, emotional, and aesthetic experiences related to the use of English outside the classroom, and the often mundane learning experiences students have with English inside the classroom. Also, activities carried out in out-of-school contexts tend to be perceived as more in tune with studentsÕ
identity and thus contribute to an increased perception of authenticity (Henry and Cliffordson 2017, 718). Against this backdrop, the authors (idem) argue that studentsÕ ideal and current selves (see the L2 Motivational Self System Model in Dšrnyei 2005) play an important role in defining both their motivation to engage with English in and outside of school, and their self-perception of instructed contexts.
Another recent study (Bellini 2018) carried out in the Veneto region investigated third year middle school studentsÕ (n=45; 13-14 years old) level and type of engagement with English and German informal language activities through administering a two part questionnaire. He found that students tended to engage more with English than with German outside of school. In fact, while the most frequent activities in both languages related to technology (i.e. videogames, social networks, listening to songs, and watching Youtube videos), findings revealed that English was nonetheless the preferred language for all of these activities. Bellini (idem) suggests that the reason behind these results is studentsÕ perception of English as a more useful tool in real life (see Crystal 2003 on English as a global language) in comparison to German. Furthermore, his findings revealed that students engaged more in receptive rather than in productive activities. However, a good percentage of the students also reported to speak to tourists more than once a week. This is not surprising given that the Veneto region witnesses an intense flow of tourists all year around, especially in those areas that are close to Venice. Indeed, both Menegale (2013) and Bellini (2018) are particularly relevant for our research as their participants come from the same geographical area and are likely to have the same background and exposure to English as our participants (see Paragraph 8.5.).
2.3.2. Research on non-formal language learning
The focus of this paragraph is on the impact that engagement in non-formal learning activities/projects has on studentsÕ language learning and affective factors. Through integrating the European CommissionÕs (2012) definitions with those of EshachÕs (2007), we here identify non-formal learning activities/projects as having the following characteristics:
1) they take place in settings beyond the classroom, such as summer camps, youth groups, clubs, churches, museums, theatres, online platforms, parks, etc.
2) They are structured in terms of learning objectives, time, and contents. 3) They involve some sort of learning support.
23 5) They are usually experience based, and focus on meaning rather than on form.
6) They are not usually awarded grades/qualifications, unless they are part of a formal module both inside and outside the classroom.
7) They are generally non-sequential, and/or have a short duration. 8) They usually involve a strong intrinsic motivational component.
Among the non-formal learning settings cited above, summer camps have gained wide recognition as offering alternative and useful opportunities for language development. Although they differ substantially in terms of format, location, underpinning language teaching methodologies, teaching staff, and studentsÕ characteristics, summer camps can provide students with both formal activities (classroom based), and non-formal activities (i.e. sport, theatre, arts and crafts, sightseeing trips). While a number of studies has focused on the impact that summer camps have on offsetting immigrant childrenÕs learning losses over the summer (Cooper et al. 1996; Stanat et al., 2012), others have focused on studentsÕ foreign language development and motivation. For example, Wighting et al. (2005) conducted a descriptive study on the effect of a 3 week English language summer camp on 149 Chinese students (8-18 years old). The summer camp was hold in China in a hotel accommodation, which hosted both the participants and the formal activities, and was taught by American teachers in collaboration with Chinese teachers. The camp did not only consist of formal classes, but also of recreational activities (i.e. sports, sightseeing trips, drama) with the end goal of promoting spoken English both inside and outside the more ÒtraditionalÓ classroom. Through conducting both students and teachersÕ surveys and interviews, the findings revealed that participating in the camp had a positive impact on studentsÕ language proficiency and motivation. In terms of motivation, the following aspects were particularly valued by the students: (i) the opportunity to interact with native speakers, (ii) the novelty of a relaxed, casual, and enjoyable setting, and (iii) the use of games, singing, drama, sports and field trips. Students reported strong positive feelings towards the more interactive pedagogical framework of the summer camp, in sharp contrast with that of their traditional language classrooms, which only focused on the mastery of grammar. Therefore, the authors concluded that it was the Òsynergistic interaction of three elements: the camp context, the interactive nature of the teaching and learning activities, and the opportunity to use spoken English for authentic purposesÓ (idem, 98) that accounted for the positive learning experience. Interestingly, what students perceived to be most beneficial was the fact that they had the chance to build strong relationships with the other students, and the teachers.
